I am a bit concerned about previous posts regarding politicians policies vs. their personal lives, i.e, that a candidates politics should trump matters of personal morality.
Shouldn't we expect more from our leaders? Especially, the president of the United States?
Why can't we expect them to be faithful to their wives and families? Why can't we expect them to no perjure themselves under oath and to obey the rule of law?
Would any of us feel comfortable putting are children under the care of a philandering criminal school teacher? "Yes, Mrs. Reynolds may sleep around flagrantly and probably does a bit of coke on the side but, hey, no one can teach trigonometry like she can!"
Our leaders should be the very best. I am nor expecting to elect the Pope or even a religious leader. I just want general executive competence and integrity.
10 comments:
"Elect the Pope..."
Now that is a good idea!
Just kidding.
You have a good point. I think that we Americans kind of got de-sensitized to Presidents behaving badly during the Clinton presidency.
Wow, we are all in agreement!Yay! And I think it has to start with honesty. That's why I greatly regret voting for George Bush. He had about the same record of sinful misbehavior as Barack Obama ( a little weed, a little blow) but unlike Barack Obama, he refused to be honest about it. At the time I thought, look lay off him, this is nothing compared to Clinton, who lied about far more devious acts. But now, I don't care as much about what they did, as long as I KNOW what they did, and they are honest and forthright about it.
BTW - I heard the pope bets on college basketball. Big Hoyas fan.
I fear I have created a blog monster with this King David stuff. Again, just a few quick remarks:
Mark: the comparison was David to Bill not Hillary. That Bill was a good president despite thinking with "his other head" in his personal conduct.
Walker: in the Republican Party I don't think you get either fidelity or truthfulness in their most revered leaders, e.g. Reagan. I will take a Monica-gate over the Iran-Contra conspiracy/cover-up any day of the week. I will take a Monica-gate over a trumped up war in Iraq any day of the week. It just isn't even in the same flippin' universe of consequence.
Steve an I have said till we are blue in the face, Republicans did precisely that: put policies over personal lives when Carter lost the election. McCain is just another in a long line of divorced Republicans that, on the personal level, we detest.
Now can I go pay my bills, please...
Alison Fairfield
But you can't divorce Hillary's conduct from Bill's. I find it troubling that her supporters are willing to giver her credit for his successes, but not give her any of the blame for his failure. You have to take the bad if you are going to take the good.Bill and Hillary are one flesh, at least politically, if no longer personally.
She enabled and stood by his many, many bimbo-gates, because she needed the power he provided her. She happily destroyed Paula Jones.
She also had her own ethical problems (cattle-futures, whitewater, sneaking files out of Vince Foster's office while his body was still warm, the lincoln bedroom, taking money from dubious chinese poeple, etc. etc.) She has never apologized or come clean about any of it.
And now she won't release her and Bill's tax records. He won't allow his library archivist to release his personal papers. He won't reveal who gave money to his presidential library.
Fairfields, we need transparency now more than ever.
Okay she's scum. But you are the one saying I am giving her Bill's successes. I have only said we like her policy better.
I am not making an anti-transparency argument right now. I am just saying that you take all of that muck together and it still doesn't begin to compare with the grievious abuse of power that the Republicans have exercised. I am fighting Republicans right now, not you. And it doesn't compare with Bush Republican crony capitalism either.
Alison
Maker's Mark,
Just for fun, do you have proof for your assertion that GWB has done "a little weed, a little blow" and how "he refused to be honest about it"?
I've been following his career for years, and I just haven't seen that. Maybe it got caught in my filter, and I missed it, but inquiring minds want to know.
P.S. Do not tell me that Dan Rather told you so.
Don't you remember the whole dust-up during his first campaign? When he refused to discuss his drug use?
Here's a handy wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy
I never said I had proof that he did drugs. But it would explain his brain damage.
Allison,
I agree with you that republicans are every bit as scummy as the Clintons, but why not go for an option that is non-scummy?
And if you want to beat the republicans so badly, why not vote in the guy who polls better against McCain.
Given all the negatives the Clintons bring to table, it is hard for me to see how voting for her can be worth it. Her policies just aren't that different from Barack's, and therefore cannot be vastly superior.
And don't you want a dem who can be a 60 percent president, instead of a 51 percent president? Her policies could be the best in the world, but she'll never get them passed.
Am I the only person who saw the 60 Minutes interview with the last CIA agent who spent the last months with Saddaam who admitted to him that he DID have WMDs?
And might I remind you that the UN and every nation's secret service on earth also believed that Iraq had WMDs?
Are these the trumped up charges of which you speak??
md
what are you talking about. Saddam admitted he did NOT have WMDs. He just wanted Iran and the US to think he did for the sake of deterrence.
Post a Comment